*Ø* Blogmanac | Is Bush Unhinged?/Voting For the Lesser of Two Police States
Is Bush Unhinged?
by Robert Higgs
Before you conclude that I myself must be unhinged even to raise such a question, ask yourself this: If a man talks as if he has lost contact with reality, then might he actually have done so? Granted that this possibility deserves evaluation, then consider President George W. Bush's rhetoric in his March 19 speech to diplomats and others at the White House.
The president begins by stating his interpretation of the recent bombings in Madrid, reiterating one of his recurrent themes of the past two and a half years: "[T]he civilized world is at war" in a "new kind of war." The concept of war, of course, ranks high among evocative metaphors. Not by accident have politicians declared wars on poverty, drugs, cancer, illiteracy, and an assortment of other alleged enemies. A society at war, as William James observed in 1906 in his call for the "moral equivalent of war," finds a reason for unaccustomed solidarity and – here's where the politicians come in – for unaccustomed submission to central government authority. James himself, after all, was arguing that "the martial type of character can be bred without war." Political leaders are always seeking to establish such character, with themselves in command of the battalions of "disciplined" subjects. Insofar as the so-called war on terrorism merely represents the latest attempt to bend the war metaphor to an obvious political purpose, we might well dismiss the president's rhetorical flourish as nothing but the same old same old.
Bush, however, will allow no such dismissal. "The war on terror," he insists, "is not a figure of speech." Well, I beg your pardon, Mr. President, but that is precisely what it is. How can one go to war against "terror," which is a state of mind? Even if the president were to take more care with his language and to speak instead of a "war on terrorism," the phrase still could not be anything more than a metaphor, because terrorism is a form of action available to virtually any determined adult anywhere anytime. War on terrorism, too, can be only a figure of speech.
War, if it is anything, is the marshalling of armed forces against somebody, not against a state of mind or a form of action. Wars are fought between groups of persons. We might argue about whether the United States can wage war only against another nation state, as opposed to an indefinitely large number of individuals committed to fanatical Islamism who in various workaday guises are living in scores of different countries. The expression "war on certain criminals and conspirators of criminal acts" would fit the present case better and would entail far more sensible thinking about the proper way to deal with such persons. The idea of war, obviously, calls to mind too readily the serviceability of the armed forces. Hence the application of such forces to the conquest of Iraq in the name of "bringing the terrorists to justice," although that conquest was actually nothing but a hugely destructive, immensely expensive diversion from genuine efforts to allay the threat posed by the Islamist maniacs who compose al Qaeda and similar groups. "These killers will be tracked down and found, they will face their day of justice," the president declares, speaking as always as if only a fixed number of such killers exist, rather than a vast reservoir of actual and potential recruits that is only augmented and revitalized by actions such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It would be a boon to humanity if the president could be brought to understand the distinction between waging war and establishing justice.
Carry on . . . it's VERY interesting!
===0===0===0===
Voting For The Lesser of Two Police States
by Anthony Gregory
In 2000, many libertarian-leaning voters decided to vote against Al Gore, giving their endorsement to rule the country to George W. Bush. Some others may have chosen the Democrat, and a depressingly small number gave their support to Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. Many libertarians did not vote at all, refusing to concede any legitimacy to the state, and engaging in what many have argued to be the best libertarian electoral strategy of them all.
The first group of voters I mention, not particularly thrilled with Bush, but utterly appalled by Gore, held their noses in the voting booths, and joined millions of comrades who shared the sentiment that eight years of Bill Clinton had pushed America in an unmistakably socialist direction, and Al Gore, if elected, would only accelerate the sad process. Clinton’s attempt to nationalize healthcare, his murderous attack at Waco, Texas, his belligerent, unconstitutional bombing of Serbia, his advocacy of myriad intrusions in business and the family – this legacy had to be stopped, and libertarian-leaning voters could not let Al Gore continue it, with his extravagant promises of a new millennium of increased central planning at home and foreign intervention abroad.
Bush promised a more "humble" foreign policy, respect for states’ rights on medical marijuana, a tax cut, and a fledgling Social Security "privatization" plan. Across the board, said many of my friends, George II was the lesser of two evils.
Of course, he also called for more education spending, bizarre "faith-based" welfare programs, and expanded Medicare coverage for seniors. "Even so," chided many of my friends, "he’s still the lesser of two evils."
By now, most sensible people have abandoned that theory. Bush won the presidency by the smallest margin in American history, and has pretty much gotten away with everything we feared Gore might have inflicted upon us.
Nowadays, many libertarian-leaning folks believe that John Kerry is the lesser of two evils. To stop America’s charge toward fascism, George W. Bush must lose in November. Which probably means, unless a third party candidate has unprecedented success, that John Kerry must win.
What would John Kerry do if elected? We can’t know for sure, but we can look at what he proposes, on just a handful of issues.
On foreign policy, Kerry believes in a "bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and endemic disease."
Whoah boy! Kerry wants the U.S. government to go around the world and fix all the countries that aren’t democracies, confront the nations that have "destructive weapons" – as opposed to the other kind – and wipe out poverty and disease. Whereas many accuse Bush of lying about an "imminent threat," Kerry says that’s too high a standard for intervention. Sounds like a formula for invading the whole world.
Oh, boy. Don't stop reading now!!
Is Bush Unhinged?
by Robert Higgs
Before you conclude that I myself must be unhinged even to raise such a question, ask yourself this: If a man talks as if he has lost contact with reality, then might he actually have done so? Granted that this possibility deserves evaluation, then consider President George W. Bush's rhetoric in his March 19 speech to diplomats and others at the White House.
The president begins by stating his interpretation of the recent bombings in Madrid, reiterating one of his recurrent themes of the past two and a half years: "[T]he civilized world is at war" in a "new kind of war." The concept of war, of course, ranks high among evocative metaphors. Not by accident have politicians declared wars on poverty, drugs, cancer, illiteracy, and an assortment of other alleged enemies. A society at war, as William James observed in 1906 in his call for the "moral equivalent of war," finds a reason for unaccustomed solidarity and – here's where the politicians come in – for unaccustomed submission to central government authority. James himself, after all, was arguing that "the martial type of character can be bred without war." Political leaders are always seeking to establish such character, with themselves in command of the battalions of "disciplined" subjects. Insofar as the so-called war on terrorism merely represents the latest attempt to bend the war metaphor to an obvious political purpose, we might well dismiss the president's rhetorical flourish as nothing but the same old same old.
Bush, however, will allow no such dismissal. "The war on terror," he insists, "is not a figure of speech." Well, I beg your pardon, Mr. President, but that is precisely what it is. How can one go to war against "terror," which is a state of mind? Even if the president were to take more care with his language and to speak instead of a "war on terrorism," the phrase still could not be anything more than a metaphor, because terrorism is a form of action available to virtually any determined adult anywhere anytime. War on terrorism, too, can be only a figure of speech.
War, if it is anything, is the marshalling of armed forces against somebody, not against a state of mind or a form of action. Wars are fought between groups of persons. We might argue about whether the United States can wage war only against another nation state, as opposed to an indefinitely large number of individuals committed to fanatical Islamism who in various workaday guises are living in scores of different countries. The expression "war on certain criminals and conspirators of criminal acts" would fit the present case better and would entail far more sensible thinking about the proper way to deal with such persons. The idea of war, obviously, calls to mind too readily the serviceability of the armed forces. Hence the application of such forces to the conquest of Iraq in the name of "bringing the terrorists to justice," although that conquest was actually nothing but a hugely destructive, immensely expensive diversion from genuine efforts to allay the threat posed by the Islamist maniacs who compose al Qaeda and similar groups. "These killers will be tracked down and found, they will face their day of justice," the president declares, speaking as always as if only a fixed number of such killers exist, rather than a vast reservoir of actual and potential recruits that is only augmented and revitalized by actions such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It would be a boon to humanity if the president could be brought to understand the distinction between waging war and establishing justice.
Carry on . . . it's VERY interesting!
===0===0===0===
Voting For The Lesser of Two Police States
by Anthony Gregory
In 2000, many libertarian-leaning voters decided to vote against Al Gore, giving their endorsement to rule the country to George W. Bush. Some others may have chosen the Democrat, and a depressingly small number gave their support to Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. Many libertarians did not vote at all, refusing to concede any legitimacy to the state, and engaging in what many have argued to be the best libertarian electoral strategy of them all.
The first group of voters I mention, not particularly thrilled with Bush, but utterly appalled by Gore, held their noses in the voting booths, and joined millions of comrades who shared the sentiment that eight years of Bill Clinton had pushed America in an unmistakably socialist direction, and Al Gore, if elected, would only accelerate the sad process. Clinton’s attempt to nationalize healthcare, his murderous attack at Waco, Texas, his belligerent, unconstitutional bombing of Serbia, his advocacy of myriad intrusions in business and the family – this legacy had to be stopped, and libertarian-leaning voters could not let Al Gore continue it, with his extravagant promises of a new millennium of increased central planning at home and foreign intervention abroad.
Bush promised a more "humble" foreign policy, respect for states’ rights on medical marijuana, a tax cut, and a fledgling Social Security "privatization" plan. Across the board, said many of my friends, George II was the lesser of two evils.
Of course, he also called for more education spending, bizarre "faith-based" welfare programs, and expanded Medicare coverage for seniors. "Even so," chided many of my friends, "he’s still the lesser of two evils."
By now, most sensible people have abandoned that theory. Bush won the presidency by the smallest margin in American history, and has pretty much gotten away with everything we feared Gore might have inflicted upon us.
Nowadays, many libertarian-leaning folks believe that John Kerry is the lesser of two evils. To stop America’s charge toward fascism, George W. Bush must lose in November. Which probably means, unless a third party candidate has unprecedented success, that John Kerry must win.
What would John Kerry do if elected? We can’t know for sure, but we can look at what he proposes, on just a handful of issues.
On foreign policy, Kerry believes in a "bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and endemic disease."
Whoah boy! Kerry wants the U.S. government to go around the world and fix all the countries that aren’t democracies, confront the nations that have "destructive weapons" – as opposed to the other kind – and wipe out poverty and disease. Whereas many accuse Bush of lying about an "imminent threat," Kerry says that’s too high a standard for intervention. Sounds like a formula for invading the whole world.
Oh, boy. Don't stop reading now!!
Anonymous posted item above at 7:23 PM | Permalink
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home